Category talk:Purpose
Difficulties Size This category will be almost impossible to look through when it contains entries for a few thousand organisations. How about restricting it to "subsidiary pages" (as explained on the Cities wiki) or subpages that actually mention "purpose"? An example could be Delhi Tourism Ministry:Purpose or Delhi Tourism Ministry/Purpose (which would not need much writing to be a bigger page than Delhi Tourism Ministry right now!) Same thing applies, I expect, to all of the categories of this type. Robin Patterson 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Order of listing Listing them all under "P" is unhelpful. I suggest you modify the advice at the top (which causes that): :"Index of pages with the purpose categories :to allow your page to be indexed under the relevant category, please insert the relevant category code next to each category: :"Purpose: Purpose" That last "Purpose" should be something else. You could just leave the pipe alone and let the pages all list under their page names. Surely that's one advantage of having standardised page names? (Hmmmm - maybe that last word was meant to be a "magic word" such as ? If so, it needs tweaking.) Robin Patterson 12:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Subcategories Robin, Sub-pages is a good idea but *there is a whole lot of Wikipedia experience that wants to do away with them altogether. *Also most contributors will not be wiki savvy to do this manually. I do not know of any way we could automatically generate sub-pages (folders), perhaps you do. ::I'm not sure what you mean there, but I agree that any kind of sub-page or subsidiary page structure should be viewed with caution and may be too hard for many contributors to follow. Robin Patterson 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Subcategories is interesting- I presume that we will need to have a scheme like Delhi Tourism Ministry:Purpose or Delhi Tourism Ministry:Projects etc.? :That's the style I was suggesting we have with subsidiary pages (if we go that way); categories could have that sort of naming structure, but I'd prefer to use Wikipedia naming standards wherever we have a category that corresponds in meaning. Robin Patterson 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) This does however raise an issue for those few entries where there is no anchoring organization or geography. For example generic projects in energy, challenges for mobility, suggestions for sustainable resource use etc. :They will go at the top of their categories by the use of piped links (which again not all contributors will manage, but they're easily inserted by anyone else once the page appears in the category under some letter). Robin Patterson 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) We also need to get the subcategory hierarchy that currently works only for the US and NZ working for other geographies. :I'll start working up from your Delhi and Goa pages if you think that's a good place for me to go next. Robin Patterson 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I think standardizing that kind of structure for organizations will also be useful- So a federal government could have subcategories of purpose, mission, vision etc as well as other organizations, ministries, departments and public sector undertakings etc. We also need to address the issue of category visibility over the internet- how will Google find the correct Giki entry. Any optimization suggestions? :Google will find the page that has relevant text on it. Robin Patterson 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Do tweak appropriately if we agree this is the right course. --Anupam 22:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC) This discussion deserves a forum or two I'll copy it to Forum:Categories such as "Purpose" and "Projects". We may later copy chunks of it to more specifically named forum pages! Robin Patterson 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Done, and categorised. I recommend that we put further discussion on that page, not here, except if anything in my first two points needs discussing here because it definitely refers to only "Purpose". Robin Patterson 12:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)